4 ms·

> They would not have brought their technology over in exchange for a smile and a hug. Somehow you seem to have missed the entire point of my comment, which is

> They would not have brought their technology over in exchange for a smile and a hug. Somehow you seem to have missed the entire point of my comment, which is that there were already existing relationships based on trade and exchange that were betrayed because military subjugation was cheaper in the long run.

dotancohen 6y ago
I didn't miss that. I just disagree that trade was enough.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  Curious indeed that other nations were able to progress and modernise through trade and exchange without compromising their sovereignty, but that wouldn't be enough for African nations for some reason. What exactly would those reasons be?
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > Curious indeed that other nations were able to progress and modernise through trade and exchange without compromising their sovereignty Where, exactly, did this occur? I suppose one could point to the United States as an example but that's an edge case: a new nation splitting off from an already industrialized nation. Japan might be cited as another example, but they notion that they didn't compromise their sovereignty is not entirely accurately. Japan had contact with Europeans since the 16th century. They didn't industrialize until Western powers used gunboat diplomacy to force favorable trade deals. Furthermore, this was in the 19th century, decades after Europe had fought the first Opium War and colonial conquests in Asia had already begun. > but that wouldn't be enough for African nations for some reason. What exactly would those reasons be? Africa isn't being singled out here. The rest of the world didn't industrialize just through commercial contact either. Europe had been trading with Asia for centuries before colonization occurred, and despite that Asia did not industrialize. These regions had greater centralization, urbanization, and rates of literacy that most other regions of the world. I could flip the question around back to you: what makes you think that trade and exchange would be enough for Africa to industrialize through commercial contact when other regions of the world did not?

dotancohen 6y ago

I didn't miss that. I just disagree that trade was enough.

filleduchaos 6y ago
Curious indeed that other nations were able to progress and modernise through trade and exchange without compromising their sovereignty, but that wouldn't be enough for African nations for some reason. What exactly would those reasons be?
- manfredo 6y ago
  > Curious indeed that other nations were able to progress and modernise through trade and exchange without compromising their sovereignty Where, exactly, did this occur? I suppose one could point to the United States as an example but that's an edge case: a new nation splitting off from an already industrialized nation. Japan might be cited as another example, but they notion that they didn't compromise their sovereignty is not entirely accurately. Japan had contact with Europeans since the 16th century. They didn't industrialize until Western powers used gunboat diplomacy to force favorable trade deals. Furthermore, this was in the 19th century, decades after Europe had fought the first Opium War and colonial conquests in Asia had already begun. > but that wouldn't be enough for African nations for some reason. What exactly would those reasons be? Africa isn't being singled out here. The rest of the world didn't industrialize just through commercial contact either. Europe had been trading with Asia for centuries before colonization occurred, and despite that Asia did not industrialize. These regions had greater centralization, urbanization, and rates of literacy that most other regions of the world. I could flip the question around back to you: what makes you think that trade and exchange would be enough for Africa to industrialize through commercial contact when other regions of the world did not?